| 摘要: | 智能障礙者性權探究涉及（智能）障礙研究、女性主義、性／別研究、自主與性同意等領域，本文將接合各層面進行討論。雖然當代障礙研究以及障礙者權利運動已有許多進展，然而智能障礙者無法為自己發聲，因此其相關權利也容易遭到社會漠視，尤其是智能障礙者的性權，更是傳統障礙研究所忽略的重要議題。其中的關鍵在於人們將智商視為現代社會生活的核心，智力不足的智能障者由於缺乏相應的理性與自主能力，因此難以融入現代社會的生活當中。智力也被社會認為是從事性行為的標準，因為有效行使性同意是取得性權道德資格的基礎。智能障礙者由於無法有效地行使性同意，因此也就難以證成其性權。由此可見，對性同意進行道德分析，將是探究智能障礙者性權的重要工作。
本文將從障礙研究脈絡展開探討，釐清障礙者面貌在不同障礙研究模式中的觀看方式。西方社會主要的障礙研究模式為道德模式、醫療模式以及社會模式，這三種障礙研究模式雖然無法直接解釋智能障礙者性權，卻為理解障礙者所處社會結構以及如何形成智能障礙概念提供了重要的背景知識。其次則釐清討論智能障礙者性權時存在的矛盾現象，亦即如何要求一個不具理性能力的人進行理性的道德判斷。此一問題涉及幾個重要爭議：平等的理性個體觀是否為現代社會不可質疑的性道德預設？智力是否為決定能否從事性行為的標準？智能障礙者如何行使性同意？性同意是否只涉及當事人，如何理解智能障礙者代理人的角色？我將以此審視三種障礙研究模式在智能障礙者性權中可供參考與不足之處，並提出能力參與模式作為探討此一議題的理論基礎。
事實上，正常化原則和教育輔導系統已在處理智能障礙者的性議題，然而由於沒有對其性權進行道德分析，因此只能要求智能障礙者從事符合社會規範的性行為。然而此舉不但使得智能障礙者難以達到標準，也只能使其繼續處在不平等的社會位置而無助於解消壓迫結構。能力參與模式將對構成性權的相關條件進行論證，並借用基進女性主義對於性／別關係的分析架構，反駁自由主義對於性同意採取的平等理性個體預設。同時援引關懷倫理學對於關係的重視，以證成智能障礙者與照顧者在性同意決策過程中的道德根據。另一方面，能力參與模式也修正基進女性主義將性當成女性受到不平等待遇關鍵的立場，認為性反而能夠成為智能障礙者解消不平等待遇的實踐策略。本文預期貢獻在於兩個層面，不僅釐清智能障礙者性權議題，同時更能拓展障礙研究與性道德的研究空間。
;The study of the sexual rights of people with intellectual disabilities involves in the fields of (intellectual) disability studies, feminism, gender studies, autonomy, and sexual consent. This study aims to bring up the discussion from various perspectives. Although great progress has been made in modern disability studies and disability rights movements, the intellectually disabled cannot speak for themselves, hence their rights are often neglected. Among these rights, sexual rights of the intellectually disabled are especially critical issues overlooked by traditional disability studies. The key to this phenomenon lies in people nowadays treat intelligence as the center of social relationship. The intellectually disabled cannot fit in the modern society for their lacking of rationality and autonomy capability. Intelligence is also regarded as a criterion for engaging in sexual behaviors, because giving affirmative consent is the basis to obtain sexual rights morally. For the reason that the intellectually disabled are unable to give such consent, it is difficult to prove the presence of their sexual rights. Therefore, the morality analysis of sexual consent will be an important task for the researchers of the intellectually disabled.
This study will stem from disability studies and determine how the people with disabilities are viewed under different research models, and the major ones in the Western world are moral, medical, and social models. While these three models are not sufficient to illustrate the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, they provide a broader view for the public to understand the social structure in which the intellectually disabled are situated, as well as the causes of their intellectual disabilities. Moreover, a paradox existing in the discussion of the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled will be clarified, which is how to ask a person without rationality to form a moral judgment rationally. This paradox involves with a number of critical controversies: Can the modern fair and rational individualism grant definite sexual morality? Should intelligence be the criterion for a person to engage in sexual behaviors? How can people with intellectual disabilities give affirmative sexual consent? Should sexual consent only include the parties actually involved in sexual behaviors? And what′s the role of the disabled person′s agent? This study will examine the strengths and weaknesses of the three disability studies models regarding the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, and propose a capability engagement model as the theoretical foundation for this topic.
In fact, normalization and educational guidance are already addressing the sexual issues of the intellectually disabled. However, the intellectually disabled are only asked to engage in sexual behaviors abided by social norms, for the absence of morality analysis in their sexual rights. This not only makes it difficult for them to be qualified for sexuality, but also limits them to stay in the unfair social position, which does not help them separate from the oppressive structure. The capability participation model will validate the sexual rights criteria, and refute the fair and rational individual presumption by introducing radical feminism’s gender relationship analytical framework. Moreover, the importance of relationship in care ethics is also referenced as the morality basis of the intellectually disabled and their caregivers. On the other hand, the capability engagement model also adjusted the standpoint of radical feminism’s treating sexuality as the key to the injustice of women’s rights, and instead consider sexuality as the practicing strategies for the intellectually disabled’s correction of injustice. This study hopes to contribute to two aspects: to clarify the sexual rights of the intellectually disabled, and probe into a broader scope of disability research and sexual morality studies. |
